Is the world becoming uninsurable?

Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.

I've been trying to talk to people locally, a place with lots of homes built in the woodland-urban interface, about the risks of climate change and how insurance will have to change. Unfortunately these discussions almost never go well, because it seems that most people have at best a surface level understanding of what insurance is and how it works, and everyone is convinced that it's a full scam and insurance companies are fabricating everything. When in reality, insurance is one of the rare areas where risks are very well assessed, not just by the initial insurer but also by a second party when reinsurance is purchased. And often those exits from the insurance markers are due to inability to purchase reinsurance.

Of course, explaining anything in detail is likely to make people think you work in the industry (I do not) and get accused of being a shill. All of which proves to me that older generations had a much easier life because nobody so financially ignorant today is in any sort of position to be able to buy a home.

All that said, I don't think it's actually a price ceiling. It's a limitation of what factors can be taken into account to set rates, and constitutional amendment from Prop 108 prevents the legislature from changing it.

Insurance should not be for profit, and things like e.g. State Farm suddenly cancelling people's renters/fire insurance just two weeks before the fires (I am one of those people) are what people hate about insurance. No one is arguing that insurance is bad at risk assessment, but rather how they wield their proficiency with it.

Why does State Farm in particular have a moral obligation to insure you against fire if it’s not profitable for them to do so?

To pick random examples of unrelated companies, McDonalds or SpaceX would also refuse to insure you against fire. Why should people hate State Farm for this reason, but not McDonalds or SpaceX?

If State Farm didn’t exist and the state ran insurance instead, and were willing to insure all comers, they’d be subsidizing people who can’t be insured profitably. That’s not crazy on its face (the state subsidizes lots of different things), but it’s at least worth asking why we should be paying for people to live in high-fire-risk areas rather than any number of other things the state could be spending those resources on.

> To answer your utterly moronic question

I don’t think it was moronic at all; the point is to get to the bottom of what assumptions and axioms you’re using. What is the moral framework according to which you claim State Farm has wronged you. Only then can we judge whether your claim is in fact correct.

> because they aren't in the business of insurance

So, if I understand your implicit argument correctly, it seems to be that anyone who sells a product be forced to sell it to anyone, no matter how costly it is to them.

There’s no McDonalds in Barrow, Alaska, presumably because running a McDonalds there would be prohibitively expensive. Is that immoral? Should they have an obligation to open a store there?